The new AHPRA guidelines will take effect from 2 September 2025, although the law itself will not change. These guidelines will set out how advertising of higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures such as injectables, fillers, thread lifts and PRP (platelet-rich plasma), must be conducted.
They will act as a clarification of how
AHPRA will interpret and enforce existing advertising rules under the National Laws.
These rules apply to all advertisers marketing in Australia and outline what is considered misleading or unlawful. This includes the use of testimonials, pricing, hashtags and promotional language that may breach legal obligations.
Under existing Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) law and the incoming AHPRA guidelines, it is illegal for injectable businesses to directly or indirectly advertise prescription-only injectables.
This includes the advertising of product names such as ‘wrinkle-reducing injections’ or ‘dermal fillers’, brand names like ‘Botox’ or ‘Juvederm’, monikers like ‘baby tox’ or ‘brotox’ and the mentioning of treatment prices.
Director of the advertising review and classification company
ClearAds Australia, Alison Lee says businesses in the cosmetic injectables industry must urgently ensure that their ads, including digital forums and social media platforms, “remove high-risk terms and imagery that could be considered misleading or trivialising of these types of services”.
“If [their ads are] not compliant, then this can lead to quite costly breaches, which they should try and avoid. It’s [their] brand and reputation that could be impacted too,” says Lee.
Currently worth $4.1 billion and forecast to grow 19.3 percent annually through to 2030, the cosmetic injectables industry sector is booming. This exponential growth is coinciding with increasing regulatory pressure and a growing compliance gap that many businesses are underprepared to tackle.
In the previous financial year, the vanuatu cell phone database TGA requested the removal of around 13,500 advertisements from online platforms. These ads included the promotion of cosmetic injectables, medicinal cannabis and weight-loss treatments, which points to the scale of non-compliance across digital media.
An explosive uptick in unlawful ads
A recent report by Operation Redress revealed that 98 percent of cosmetic injectable clinics are breaching strict advertising rules governed by the TGA.
Lee says the TGA is moving swiftly with new guidelines in the injectable industry due to the extreme volume of non-compliant advertising.
“We’ve seen the media report on the number of ads that the TGA have found to be non-compliant and that’s especially online where influencer content and social media posts can spread rapidly,” Lee says.
“This, combined with the sector’s exponential growth and high consumer demand for these types of services, [means] regulators can see a very urgent need to act to protect consumers from the misleading claims that are out there and some of the unsafe messaging,” she says.
The current rules and regulations
In Australia, the TGA is responsible for regulating therapeutic goods, such as vaccines, sunscreens, vitamins and minerals, medical devices and prescription medicines.
In recent times, weight loss drugs like Ozempic, nicotine vaping products and medicinal cannabis have all become areas of concern for the TGA.
As is the case with the prescription-only drugs advertising ban in Australia, most high-income countries have similar bans on direct advertising of prescription-only drugs.
New Zealand and the US, however, allow unrestricted Direct-To-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) of branded medicines, which includes the name of the drug and the condition for which it is prescribed.
Not allowing total DTCA, Canada is the only other high-income country that permits partial advertising of prescription medicines – showing ‘reminder ads’ that mention the name of the drug, but not the condition for which it is prescribed.
The prohibition of DTCA of prescription-only drugs is almost universally deemed a health protection measure, particularly for newly marketed drugs and procedures that carry potential adverse health risks.
Other bans and restrictions on advertising in Australia
Historically, other industries – such as tobacco, gambling and alcohol – have faced significant restrictions and bans due to the risk to public health and safety.
Most notable was the ban on tobacco advertising across TV and radio in 1976 and the Australian Government’s introduction of the Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act in 1989, which prohibited tobacco advertising in all newspapers and magazines.
In recent months, the South Australian Government has banned the advertising of junk food on all Adelaide Metro buses, trams and trains – citing research that indicates obesity overtaking tobacco as a leading risk factor contributing to disease burden in Australia.
Australia has a history of cracking down on problematic advertising, but regulation of the injectable industry has lagged – until now.
Read more: Internet advertising spend reaches $4.2 billion in Q1 2025